Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the one thing annotations cannot: the return payload is Markdown text rather than HTML or JSON. It says nothing about error behavior for non-existent paths, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return type and resource, with the parameter and example folded in compactly. Nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a stated return format, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it. The only gap is edge-case behavior on bad paths or relative vs absolute path handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single required parameter, the schema already carries the burden. The description adds only a concrete example path ('/guides/'), which is mildly helpful but not meaningful new semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Return the Markdown text of a page') scoped to a named domain, which is far more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_site, but the resource being fetched is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool clearly applies when a page path is already known, and the '/guides/' example hints at that. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_site for path discovery, nor any note about what happens with an invalid or missing path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.